Jump to content

Talk:To Fly!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Fuchs (talk | contribs) at 14:08, 8 June 2022 (→Thoughts on the article: some more thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleTo Fly! has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
February 5, 2022Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
February 27, 2022Good article nomineeListed
March 1, 2022Peer reviewNot reviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 13, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a 35-second Blue Angels sequence in To Fly! took more than four months to prepare?
Current status: Good article


Untitled

"a 1976 short documentary film which follows the history of flight, from the first hot air balloons in the 19th century to 21st century space probes. It was the first IMAX film shown at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. The movie is still shown in the Air and Space Museum today." Although the Library of Congress labeled the movie "culturally insignificant," it could be argued that many people who saw the movie in the 1970s as children are involved in aviation in no small part to the flying scenes in this movie.

Please reconcil "cultural significance|significance" in talk vs. main page.

The first hot air balloons were in 1783 in the 18th century; and how can a 1976 documentary include 21st century space probes?

S.

Artists making models was how probes was shown. Doug Trumbull models were popular. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"First" IMAX film claim

I've now seen 3 different films released in 1970 claiming to be the first film shot for IMAX. See list of IMAX films and the films entered for 1970. Anyone know which film was the first? - Jmartinsson (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I know, Tiger Child (1970), exhibited at Expo '70 was first. I know that there are at least two others that are earlier than To Fly (1976) -- I can recall seeing Catch the Sun in 1973, and North of Superior in June 1975. North of Superior is probably the second IMAX film made -- it was the premiere IMAX film for the opening of the Cinesphere (the first permanent IMAX theater) at Ontario Place in 1971. So I think there's plenty of evidence for dropping the claim that To Fly was the first IMAX film.--Voodude (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:To Fly!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox – Summary

  • File:To Fly (1976 short film).jpg → To Fly (1976 short film).jpg (in the infobox)
 Done Chompy Ace 23:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 23:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since only one form of currency is used, "US$" is only required for the first use (see MOS:MONEY).
Thanks for letting me know about this, I didn't know it's only for first usages.  Done GeraldWL 01:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of the film was mooted in 1970," – the sentence is short so I do not think the comma is necessary.
 Done GeraldWL 01:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Independence Day (United States)|July 4]] – kind of an WP:EASTEREGG for non-Americans.
 Done Chompy Ace 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spectators below looks" → "Spectators below look" (American English)
 Done Chompy Ace 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[History of aviation|a new age has begun]] – this also feels like an easter egg. I would remove the link since history of aviation is mentioned in the next paragraph.
 Done Chompy Ace 23:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production

 Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any way to make a cite bundle out of "[16][19][20][21][22]" (in #Pre-production)?
 Done; this is similar to The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens (film), RoboCop, Frozen II, Inside Out (2015 film), Bee Movie, The Emoji Movie, IPad, and Kyline Alcantara, among others. Chompy Ace 21:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proposed to them" – specify the "them" in that sentence.
  •  Done, it's the Smithsonian.
  • James Freeman[24] to make the film. → James Freeman to make the film.[24]
 Done Chompy Ace 21:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation before quotations (some quotes should end with ." not ".)
    I reread the source and you're right; it's a full sentence.  Done
  • Commas after "fiction, documentary", Robert M. Young and "still photographer" (American English).
     Done
  • "Television documentarian and historian Jon Wilkman was also "briefly" involved in pre-production. NASA, the Office of Naval Research, and California Institute of Technology were also involved in the production." – remove the double use of "also" in consecutive sentences.
     Done
  • Add a "the" before California Institute of Technology.
  • "the best film for 11 years he and Freeman worked on together" – please reword
    What you you think of the current, Some Dude From North Carolina?
  • "directed and filmed ... frequently switching roles" – it should be made clear that you're partially talking about the cinematographer.
    I changed "filmed" to "cinematographed" if that's oki.
  • "5am to 9pm" → "5 am to 9 pm" (WP:TIME)
    Done.
  • "was relatively small but this did not" → "was relatively small but did not"
     Done
  • "prompted the use of a storyboard and the script" – should this be part of the sentence it's in, or the next?
    I tweaked the whole part.
  • "required use" → "required the use"
     Done
  • "rules ignored" → "rules were ignored"
     Done
  • "To have give the film a dramatic look" – remove "have"
     Done
  • "cross and cross-back lighting" (WP:JARGON, what is that? This also applies to a large part of this section.)
    I looked into the paragraph and tried reducing the jargon.
  • "audiences sits" → "audiences sit" (American English)
 Done Chompy Ace 21:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the IMAX screen is enormous, audiences sits relatively close to the screen and "the new center lies approximately one-third up from the bottom of the screen"." – This sentence sounds like an explanation of IMAX theaters. How does this relate to the rest of the paragraph?
    This is relevant as it mentions the photography term headroom: because what looks small in conventional screens will be gigantic in IMAX, plenty of space was provided so the subject doesn't seem too close.
  • "latter was treated" → "latter were treated"
    I can't seem to find this sentence?
  • "hot-air-balloon" → "hot-air balloon"
     Done
  • "Some lenses specifically built for Hasselblad cameras" – is there a "were" missing in between this sentence?
    I tweaked the whole sentence for more clarity.
  • Yuma Desert[14] took over four months to choreograph. → Yuma Desert took over four months to choreograph.[14]
    I disagree. The Yuma Desert part is the only one mentioned in ref 1, while ref 14 is where I got the "four months" and "time consuming" parts. I moved it to the back though.
  • "hits a screen ... and shattered it" – what type of screen? Like, the camera screen?
    Yep, clarified.
  • "pointing the ground" – word missing?
     Done
  • "time period" – you can remove either one of those words and the sentence still works.
     Done
  • "a 1891" → "an 1891"
    Oddly enough I remember writing "Sierra No. 3" (with 'a'). Changed.
  • "They also learned from 2001: A Space Odyssey the importance of movement." → "They also learned about the importance of movement from 2001: A Space Odyssey."
     Done
  • A lot of sentences in #Space_sequence use past-tense and poor vocabulary. Examples include "they learned something small like stars on an IMAX presentation is nothing on a traditional presentation" and the sentence that ends with "is impossible". Please make sure this section reads well.
    I copyedited the section, see what you think
  • "to check" → "to make sure" or "to confirm"
     Done
  • "Bellows and Hasselblad close-up lenses were used" → "close-up lenses by Bellows and Hasselblad were used"
     Done
  • "Some scenes, including one at Saturn, was" → "Some scenes, including one at Saturn, were"
     Done
  • Add "(fps)" after "frames per second" so the next use of the term fps makes sense.
     Done
  • Add "the" before "three-dimensional effect".
     Done
  • Remove the comma after Bernardo Segall.
     Done
  • ""the most professional and experienced symphonic"" – this sounds biased.
    Tweaked.
  • "sprocketed, magnetic film" – what?
    Clarified.
  • "expected audience" → "expected audiences"
     Done
  • "Conoco helped fund the project "as a Bicentennial gift" to the NASM" (pre-production) ... "Conoco later became the film's sponsor" (post-production) – wait, what does this mean? Does "sponsor" mean they financed the film or that they promoted it?
    It means that they financed the film. I removed the sentence as it's kinda obvious?
  • "combined with production" → "combined with the production"
     Done

Themes and style

  • "its visual rhetoric shines" – WP:RECEPTION
    I can't seem to find a place for this bit in reception. I think it's relevant analysis, as the nationalist, metanarrative theme is said to run throughout the movie, so it's interesting that one thinks it only shows in the space sequence; the citation is also a film analysis publication.
  • "a museum admission" – is this referring to the NASM museum?
    The book doesn't explicitly mention NASM. I think this is great, as NASM isn't the only museum screening it.
  • "categorized a travelogue" → "categorized as a travelogue"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • "the inexperienced projectionists" ... from where?
     Done
  • "the projection booth" ... which one?'
    I think having the above point done makes this clear.
  • "entering" → "entered"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "human's quest" → "humanity's quest"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacGillivray, who was close friends with Freeman" ... this is already established
     Done
  • "as well as a shot of a vast forest with a score including a feminine sigh as the expanse is revealed" – too wordy
     Done?
  • "screened screens it since its opening" – reword
     Done
  • "It has also been show" → "It has also been shown"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Remove the comma after "within the US and Canada".
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highest grossing" → "highest-grossing"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporarous" → "Contemporary"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most-underrated" → "most underrated"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after every use of "however".
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "audiences can be heard exclaiming in awe" → "audiences were heard exclaiming in awe"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "a" before "fear of flying".
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma after "a form of escapism".
 Done Chompy Ace 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "top-three" → "top three"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indonesia, US" → "Indonesia, the US"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Moscow" → "in Moscow"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instrumental to" → "instrumental in"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incuding" – typo
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highest-grossing documentary" → "the highest-grossing documentary"
 Done Chompy Ace 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Progress
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rlink2 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

To T:DYK/P2

Improved to Good Article status by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk). Self-nominated at 06:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: ALT3 seems most interesting with ALT1 a close second. Hooks and article all look good, everything is verified with the sources here. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the article

Hey, as requested, some thoughts. I'll perform an actual thorough line edit at some point too, but I wanted to get the lay of the land and suggest more high-level stuff too with an eye towards FAC. Overall, I think this is a solid start and it's got the bones it needs. Some higher-level thoughts follow:

General:

  • Given the importance of the IMAX format to this film and its legacy, you probably need to introduce it a bit more than just "IMAX theater" and wikilinking it in the lead. Likewise a bit more in the body. Per accessibility, you really want to have a minimum viable article where I don't have to link away from the article to get the gist, and I'm not entirely sure that's reached here throughout.
    I added a very brief description for IMAX in the lead and a sentence at "Background", what do you think?
  • I'm not really sure of the benefit of the notes in general. Minute variations in running time I don't think is something to worry about getting bogged down in, especially if the sources all vary, likewise how it was stylized. For the notes that are bundling refs (which is good!) I think those would be better off incorporated with the refs section itself. That leaves corporate takeover notes and inflation stuff, and I think you can just leave both out entirely. I rarely mention inflation unless you're specifically trying to relate a number to a modern context (like talking about how a ticket price was expensive back then, or how a budget was super-high for the time.)
    I removed portions of the minutes note (I think it's important to note that some sources are wrong since there's a possibility others might be like "But this very reliable Newspaper.com source says it's 30 minutes!"). I removed the stylization note, and per your reasoning, removed some inflation notes while keeping and adding some where I believe a comparison is encyclopedic. The Philips note is important as it additionally helps support the claim within the infobox, and the GSTA note is important too since some might confuse it with the more popular GSCA, who additionally also manages the IMAX Hall of Fame and also attributes their name to the induction of To Fly!. I think the bundling refs would be better staying in the notes section, since it would be really weird to have them in the refs section and the subrefereces are also in the refs section; SDFNC added them, and he uses it a lot in his articles. (Sorry for this very response lmao)
  • Some of the staff mentions get a bit into the weeds. Especially since you don't mention the overall crew size, it seems really weird we're getting into listing individual grips here (sorry, Brad Ohlund, but I don't think you're super-important here.)
    This was probably because I wanted to erase a mistake. Many sources-- including this article prior to my nuking-- claim that Brad Ohlund was the cinematographer, when he was just assisting the cinematographers. However, if you feel strongly on removing him I can do it.
  • As a general thing, the article likes introducing organizations and then using their acronyms a lot; while I didn't spot any issues where the acronyms were not introduced, I think reducing them would help read better. For example, you introduce the United States Navy and then only mention it once after that; just refer to them as the navy the second time rather than making readers rely on remembering the USN.
    I implemented your suggestion on the USN and NFR. My eyes can't find any other acronyms that fall into this category.
  • I think we need more context on what the space sequence is for the space sequence production section to make more sense.
    Had a brief paragraph summarizing the sequence.
  • In general I think there are a lot of subsections here that fall down in terms of presenting information in a useful manner. Just ending the space sequence with "oh and it took four months and change to do" versus having that frame the discussion of the sequence from the start, for example, or similarly how the post production process' length is only discussed at the end, randomly at the end of a discussion of test screenings.
    I merged the one-sentence paragraphs to their previous paragraph, and found a way to make the post-production one less random.

Prose:

  • The film explores the search for national identity and humanity's innate relationship with aviation. — who says mankind has an "innate" relationship with aviation?
    Per the Themes and Style section, paragraph 1 last sentence. I changed it to "destined" for clarity, but I can drop it if you think it's for the better.
  • with a narration written by Thomas McGrath—who actually narrated the thing? It's kind of weird to mention the narration (as written it kind of might suggest he voiced it) but not who actually performed it.
    Good question. The narrator isn't actually credited-- I think I left the article for two weeks writing that the narrator is Thomas, but rereading the source once more he's the writer. Should it be stated that the narrator is uncredited?
  • I've edited some of this in the lead, but I feel like there's sometimes a bit of impreciseness in the language that feels wrong—e.g. To Fly! remained the highest-grossing giant-screen documentary for a long period and broke other records—what is a "long period"? What other records? Even for the lead it feels sort of weasel-wordy.
    I've tweaked it, and removed the latter, since I feel like it just makes the lead more vaguely long.
  • I'm not sure the summary section really sells the importance of including the bit about the fictional hot-air balloonist, or his poem, especially since the next paragraph says the film starts with balloons. Could be cut entirely or just made into a single sentence mention (which would tie in a bit better to the mention in prepro of the humor.)
    The first paragraph summarizes a relatively significant part of the film, one that made the film as popular as it is now, and I think it's weird to not have it included. I found a source that will put the last sentence to context; I agree it seems trivial as of now.
  • It was supported by then-deputy director Melvin B. Zisfein, who made two film treatments, both of which were later discarded. Did Zisfein himself write these treatments?
    Yep; reworded.
  • Collins and Zisfein also gave a list of suggestions, 20 of which were fulfilled presumable Collins and Zisfein gave Mac and Freeman this list, but it's weird that's not made explicit, and odd that the total number of suggestions isn't mentioned but the ones they fulfilled are. (Another example of being oddly precise in a weird spot versus being vague in others.)
    I seriously need a checkup, cause it's literally stated in the source "about 30" and I forgot it. I placed it now, and I think this one is resolved. There's no information on all the suggestions, and I think listing them will be inappropriately indiscriminate.
  • then-girlfriend (now-wife) Barbara Smith As with other spots, for the benefit of not writing prose that can easily go stale (especially without any later refs being around to adjust), I would just go with girlfriend here.
    Done.
  • At the time, IMAX cameras weighed 80 pounds (36 kilograms) and had basic specifications—how are the cameras basic? What better specifications did they get?
    Gave attribution.
  • a new set of filming rules were devised and many conventional rules were ignored gah, the same! A few sentences later we get some much more useful concrete examples, so I really think this stuff should be reworked so we're not left hanging for sentences figuring out what this means.
    Placed it before the relevant sentence with a few tweaks; what do you think?
  • I think the reception section starts out strong, but by the third paragraph I lose the plot (it starts by talking about the story but then is just a laundry list of critics praising various parts of it.) WP:RECEPTION would be a useful guide here.
    I did implement WP:RECEPTION earlier but didn't use it much, especially in p3, since I didn't know on how to RECEPTIONify it. Now I reworked with the whole section, and it looks a bit more tidy now. Thoughts?

References:

  • While there is no comprehensive cast list—does the ref included really properly support there not existing a cast list?
    There just simply isn't any; it's not supported by ref but I tried looking for all those actors in the film but there's none, only Ellen and Peter. Do you think this should just be dropped?
  • Since material would move around I didn't really get into the weeds with references this go around, but I did notice there's a lot of primary sourcing used that should probably be replaced if possible: Instagram and Twitter posts are not the sourcing we'd prefer, and with FA's requirement for the highest-possible-quality sourcing it could be a concern.
    The Instagram sources I used are from the verified production company account, and are the only source where I can find those information after months of source digging. I tried finding books that contained those information but there aren't any. I think those primary sources are inevitable and it wouldn't be so comprehensive without them. I also think I've included enough secondary sources.

Images:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this awesome review! I will start looking through all these points throughout the week. I'll start off with some general replies, then will move on to the bigger stuff. GeraldWL 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, I've resolved all the points, looking forward for response. GeraldWL 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to take a proper second look this weekend, if not then next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, just your gentle reminder :) GeraldWL 21:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow process of going through the article. I'm continuing to do line edits, although one thing I'm noticing that I can't fully address without going to sources is the use of unattributed quotes, such as It was premiered to "packed audiences" at Langley Theater on July 1, 1976. or In the 1990s, they upgraded the theater's sound system to digital, "rejuvenating" the film's glory,—a lot of these come off as puffery and distracting, especially since they aren't actually telling us who actually said these quoted excerpts. In general I think every quote should be double-checked and seen if there's a better, more concise or neutral way of saying it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all, take your time! I've tweaked those two sentences-- see if it's to your liking now-- and have tweaked the Release section as a whole GeraldWL 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs sorry if I seem impatient, but I am looking forward to putting this article to FAC. I'd like to hear on your thoughts thus far and any final checks necessary for it to be up and ready. Cheers! GeraldWL 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at doing another run-through this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article still feels a bit peacocky in its diction and phrasing. Contemporary reviewers hailed it as the most underrated, electric, cinematic spectacle and similar phrases feel like they're veering out of the realm of summary and into editorializing.
  • The reception section is still pretty messy. It feels like the intent is that the first paragraph is general comments, second is cinematography, third is story, but there's lots of stray lines in and around that confuses those groupings; for example, why does the story section begin with To Fly!, especially its story, was well-received by contemporary critics. when that's duplicating stuff we've heard before? Why does Carl Sagan's opinion get mentioned next? Who described the opening scenes as intimate yet magical? There's tons of passive voice throughout too, which add to the issues.
  • While I don't generally have issues with the sources (although I think self-published social media like the Twitter behinds the scenes stuff should get curtailed), I think some of their usage is questionable—if you're going to have a line like Audiences, regardless of demographics,[23] have been "astonished" by To Fly!'s IMAX vertiginous shots since its release. I think you need a secondary source, not using a Smithsonian source itself (they might be laying it on a bit thick.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Fly!&oldid=1092155807"